home

Obama Starts Ad Blitz in Pennsylvania

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:18:07 PM EST
Tags: Pennsylvania '08, Barack Obama (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Barack Obama has begun an ad blitz in Pennsylvania, trying to overcome Hillary Clinton's substantial poll lead in the state.

With 31 days until the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, Sen. Barack Obama yesterday began airing the first pre-primary ads on Philadelphia TV stations. According to public records, the campaign spent about $330,000 on 30- and 60-second spots that will run on six area stations through Monday, the state deadline for voter registration.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, with a double-digit lead in state polls, has yet to hit local airwaves in the run-up to the April 22 primary. A total of 158 Democratic delegates are in play.

Obama has more money to spend than Hillary. Her campaign says his ads are misrepresenting the facts.

"It’s unfortunate that Barack Obama continues to talk about his leadership on ethics but doesn’t have much action to back it up. Senator Obama’s campaign still refuses to honor requests to disclose his tax and state records, and answer questions on inconsistencies with Tony Rezko. It’s a continuing pattern of words with no action.

"Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has literally criss-crossed the state talking with the people of Pennsylvania about the issues that matter to them and what they're concerned about is results, not rhetoric. They're not interested in which candidate spends the most money. They want to know which candidate is best prepared to beat John McCain in November, create good, new jobs and provide everyone with healthcare. That candidate is Hillary Clinton."

Donations would help her.

Obama is also ratcheting up his effort to register Republicans and Independents as Democrats to vote in the primary. Of course, he's not calling it "Be a Dem for a Day" -- he calls it an effort to "expand the party." He has volunteers going house to house.

Voting registration for the Dem. primary in PA ends Monday.

< Sara Jane Olson Taken Back to Prison, Clerical Mistake | Who's On the DNC Credentials Committee? >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Starts Ad Blitz in Pennsylvania | 284 comments (284 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I donated yesterday and encourage all to (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by athyrio on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:33:17 PM EST
    do the same. Dig deep cause she is worth it. :-)

    Yup, did tonight (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by suisser on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:00:56 AM EST
    My 10 year old daughter, an insulin dependent Diabetic wants Hilary for her President. How could I not?  Hilary is the real deal. It's not glamorous, or striking, but it's what we need. It's the President my kid needs.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, hey (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:11:30 AM EST
    whatever happens, best wishes to your daughter.

    Next donation I make to Clinton, I'll be thinking of her, okay?  Tell her that!

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks! Done, BIG SMILE in reply (none / 0) (#271)
    by suisser on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:29:01 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Me, too... (none / 0) (#272)
    by AmyinSC on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:30:59 AM EST
    I do hope your daughter will HAVE Hillary as her president, and for the rest of us, as well.  

    I have been thinking about this a LOT since I had knee surgery on Thurs. and was released the same day - our health care system is a mess.  There is only one reason why I did not spend one night in the hospital - money.  It certainly wasn't therapeutically helpful for ME, that's for sure.  I trust Hillary to do something to CHANGE that - for your daighter, for me, for so, so many others...

    By golly, I think I'll go give her some more money right this minute!

    [ Parent ]

    I had to donate again (5.00 / 1) (#243)
    by Curtis93433 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:08:08 AM EST
    These last few days have been crazy.  First a picture shows up on the internet with Bill Clinton and Obama's Pastor. Then KO has a special on the Obama Passportgate to change the narrative.  Followed by everyone from the Obama crowd crowing about someone in the Clinton camp claimed they had less than a 10% chance, thus she was bringing down the party and should get out.  Then as Obama was standing on stage a5t a rally, one of Obama surrogates, supposedly a respected Genral, said right in front of Obama, Bill Clinton reminded them of Joe McCarthy. In some ways that is the same as him sitting in the pew listening to anti American comments and not responding or walking out.  

    This is a signs of a desperate man who supposedly has this thing wrapped up...  I couldn't take it any longer and as long as Hillary has a chance even if it is 10%, I will keep on helping her out.  I gave another $150 tonight and am now up to $750 since February 5th.  From a guy, You Go Girl!!!!

    [ Parent ]

    Thank You! :) (none / 0) (#247)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:19:44 AM EST
    I need to hold off until after the first (yeah, got behind on my client billing), but it's great seeing others continuing support until I can again. It's real hard not to when I see a bogus slam or smear against her. The guy you saw today was McPeak. Obama called him up and HANDED him the mic. And then stood there and allowed that BS statement to be made.

    Nice way to promote unity . . .

    [ Parent ]

    And McPeak was a Dubya backer (none / 0) (#293)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:46:36 PM EST
    and state party chair for Bush in 2000.   That tells me McPeak has been anti-Clinton for a loooong time.

    [ Parent ]
    correct me if i am wrong here, but (none / 0) (#297)
    by hellothere on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:48:04 AM EST
    didn't this guy have to resign with a scandal during the clinton years? i also read that he really screwed up his command also. the air force was glad to see him retire. so it would follow that he might have some resentments.

    [ Parent ]
    I donated (none / 0) (#280)
    by tek on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:43:21 AM EST
    yesterday and I want to donate every week from now on.  If only I could take back the money I gave to John Kerry and Barack Obama (2004)and Rod Blagojevich and send it to Hil!

    [ Parent ]
    Ok, I'll bite! (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by mbuchel on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:37:14 PM EST
    Just making sure I have the double standard straight...
    It's ok if repubs cross over in states like TX, OH, and MS if they're voting for Hillary, but if the Obama has indys and repubs voting for him it's a subversion of the democratic party selection process.
    If I have this wrong, please correct me.  Thanks!

    No, it's not alright, (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Practically Lactating on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:41:57 PM EST
    and Clinton has done nothing to encourage it.

    [ Parent ]
    In all seriousness... (none / 0) (#9)
    by mbuchel on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:43:45 PM EST
    On a site which features "Big Tent Democrat" we are opposed to attracting support from indys?

    [ Parent ]
    One day support is not something that (none / 0) (#12)
    by tigercourse on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:45:50 PM EST
    I'd call great.

    [ Parent ]
    Why do you assume... (none / 0) (#13)
    by mbuchel on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:48:06 PM EST
    that they're registering just for one day?  Believe it or not, a vote for Obama is not necessarily a vote against Clinton.
    You know what they say about assuming...

    [ Parent ]
    I assume many are "Dems for a Day" (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:38:40 PM EST
    because that has been the phrase on Obama flyers to recruit such voters in several states.  Google to see some discussed here in past, read the rest of these appeals, and see the promises that switching to Dem registration in primaries does not prevent switching back to Republican for the fall election.

    I also assume that Obama advertising, such as this, is effective and worth the outspending of Clinton by as much as 5 to 1 in other states so far.  Those are expensive votes -- but the real cost to the party comes when those voters don't come back in November to vote for the nominee that they picked to beat.

    [ Parent ]

    Can you provide any proof (none / 0) (#149)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:29:19 AM EST
    for your wild claims about some nefarious Obama "Dem for a Day" campaign?  In NV, a single precint captain, on his own, sent out flyers saying something similar, but I haven't heard about anything else like this happening.

    Meanwhile, Bill and Hillary have praised McCain as having CiC credentials and loving his country while declining to say the same thing about Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Ask nicely (nt) (none / 0) (#154)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:38:07 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think they may also have said (none / 0) (#168)
    by echinopsia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:52:07 AM EST
    that they are proud of their lovely and accomplished daughter Chelsea, but they didn't say they were also proud of the lovely and accomplished Barry.

    Call Edward R. Murrow.

    [ Parent ]

    YOU provide proof they will stay! (none / 0) (#289)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:16:46 AM EST
    come on now! we are waiting! sound of crickets!

    [ Parent ]
    Party Building Nonsense (none / 0) (#171)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:54:31 AM EST
    Another Obama myth is the 'we're attracting new people into the party.'

    In Texas an analysis of the vote reveals that Obama supporters voted for only President and left the rest of the ballot blank.

    A much smaller percentage of Clinton supporters vacated the ballot after registering their choice for President. Basically Clinton supporters went through the entire ballot.

    It is not a demonstration of potential coattalis when supporters are only interested in one person on the ballot.

    It certainly does not demonstrate party building.

    Real party building is when the number of people willing to work election after election for down ticket candidates is increased.

    If Obama's appeal is to those dumb enough to want reconciliation, compromise with Republicans, etc.; it's really hard to picture any of those people as partisan party loyalists going door to door canvasing for the Democratic candidate for state represntative or county commissioner, etc.

    [ Parent ]

    Because Republicans are never going (4.66 / 3) (#19)
    by tigercourse on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:51:39 PM EST
    to vote for Obama in a contest against McCain. If they are anti-choice, pro-gun, pro-military, anti-tax, etc. they have absolutely no reason to back Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    I have 3 close friends who self ID as Republican (none / 0) (#35)
    by Knocienz on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:00:45 PM EST
    2 are strongly committed to voting for Obama over McCain. I haven't discussed it with the third (who I suspect will stick to McCain.)

    Not a statistically significant sample, but certainly relevant.


    [ Parent ]

    3 on 301,000,000 (none / 0) (#42)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:06:43 PM EST
    speaking of which, when did that happen???  why am i used to 260,000,000 as my figure?

    D*** YOU SOCIAL STUDIES TEACHERS!!!  ;)

    [ Parent ]

    They're balanced out by two Republican friends (none / 0) (#264)
    by andrys on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:04:04 AM EST
    I'm just kidding here, but it's also the truth.  

      I have two Republican friends who have never voted Democrat but they are hoping to be able to vote for Hillary in Nov.

      :-)   You're right, it's relevant but I can't guess how much of each will be happening where.

      In the meantime, Rasmussen Reports came out today with poll results after the speech, and it's not looking good for Obama in their poll.

       A progressive blog page shows electoral maps as of SurveyUSA's 3/20 results and that definitely doesn't look good, though at least Clinton looks better for a win in this one, over McCain.  (Colors are the reverse of what's expected.)

       Those are based on Survey USA's latest poll on the 20th.  It'll be interesting to see what happens with longer range effects of the speech and also the "a typical white person" remark.
     

    - Andrys


    [ Parent ]

    Then we aren't disagreeing (none / 0) (#286)
    by Knocienz on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:10:11 AM EST
    I was responding to a statement that insisted that Republicans were never going to vote for Obama and that those switching over were just engaged in dirty tricks.

    My experience is that there are plenty that will and targeting those individuals is appropriate; that we want them to join the party and. That there are some who will also vote for Hilary wasn't relevant to that specific point. That people might accuse Rush Limbaugh of dirty tricks for encouraging people to vote for the person he thinks states is a weaker candidate (but really things will get him better ratings and material) isn't the same thing at all IMO.

    I followed your Rasmussen link and the main ad was for John McCain. ;-)  Gallup has Obama mostly recovered from the worst of it and back ahead of Hillary in national numbers. So it appears to be a 'pick your poll' moment. We'll see how things continue over the next few days.

    [ Parent ]

    when to target and how (none / 0) (#291)
    by tree on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:51:11 AM EST
    is an important aspect of coverting Republicans for real, and not just to skew a primary for the personal gain of one candidate. I don't think that targeting Republicans with a GOTV drive in a democratic primary is the way to get REAL republican converts. Its just a way to game the system in your favor. If Republicans really do want to vote Democratic, they don't need to vote in the Democratic primary to prove it. The difference in the issues between the two candidates is relatively small, so if a Republican is seriously considering voting Democratic, it really shouldn't matter in November which one wins the primary. But, if a Republican is voting in a Democratic primary just to game the system, that is not a good thing, and should be greatly discouraged. That's why knowing when to target and how is so important, unless you're just using those votes to try to help wreck your primary opponent's chances in the primary--which is very shortsighted.

    [ Parent ]
    Gaming the system is bad. We agree (none / 0) (#294)
    by Knocienz on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:26:05 PM EST
    But considering the large number of Republicans who have stopped self-identifying as such, it isn't unreasonable at all to tell those folks that they may also want to re-register.

    I also think that encouraging them to re-register as a Dem rather than as Independent is a fine thing.

    As for the difference on the issues being so small that it shouldn't matter who they vote for, THAT we disagree on. Consider how many folks on this site insist that they would vote for McCain over Obama if he wins.

    [ Parent ]

    I haven't noticed more than one or two that said (none / 0) (#295)
    by tree on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:03:46 PM EST
    they'd vote for McCain-and that may include some Obama pprimary voters. I've seen more that won't vote for either Obama or McCain. But again, supporters views don't translate to differences on the issues between the candidates.

     I don't think of Obama as any more liberal than Clinton. They are both centrists. I'm more concerned with Obama's advisers, especially those from the U of Chicago school of economic thought, and of course Brennan, his intelligence advisor, who thinks telecom immunity is a good and necessary thing. Of course, maybe Obama's slight rightward slant is a reason for Republicans to back Obama, but then again, why wouldn't they vote for the real deal in McCain if they want a rightward slant.

    As for telling all those folks to re-register as Democrats, why not wait until the general starts and just urge them to vote Democratic in the general. That gives the Democrats the good, new voters, without the bad--gamers who aren't sincere.    

    [ Parent ]

    The firearms vote (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:56:09 PM EST
    Nearly all the tickets split between Feingold and Bush in Wisconsin in 2004 were from the "Gun Belt" counties of northern and western Wisconsin. Obama, while less pro-firearms rights than Russ, has framed the issue correctly for November, as a Rights matter, rather than "hunters and sportsmen."


    Keep your eyes on November, Frodo. Don't use The Ring.
    [ Parent ]
    and people who don't think realistically (none / 0) (#205)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:29:15 AM EST
    are called naive.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, when it doesn't suit Hillary (none / 0) (#14)
    by digdugboy on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:49:01 PM EST
    Encouraging indys and republicans to join the democratic party != a vote for Obama. They could just as easily vote for Hillary. But we don't want to risk more voters in the election, when the opinion polls have Hillary ahead by a good margin.

    On the other hand it's a capital affront to democracy when voters in Florida and Michigan get slighted.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]

    I have (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by sas on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:14:51 PM EST
    handed out voter registration forms to 5 Republicans - 4 women and 1 man - so they could change their registration here in PA. Four of them wanted to vote for Hillary and 1 wanted to vote against Obama.

    Keep up that voter registration drive , Barack! Barack

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly (none / 0) (#68)
    by digdugboy on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:25:58 PM EST
    If Obama brings more people to the democratic party, even if they vote for Hillary, good for him.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]
    You do realize that Hillary's (none / 0) (#80)
    by jes on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:40:26 PM EST
    people were all over today also doing registrations. On one side of the street are Hillary signs and registration booths and on the other side of the street the Obama signs and registration booths.

    [ Parent ]
    Are you the Pittsburgh one or is that SAS? (none / 0) (#128)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:10:03 AM EST
    N/T

    [ Parent ]
    I'm Philly n/t (none / 0) (#144)
    by jes on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:25:51 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    OK, I am the NE PA One (none / 0) (#181)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:03:39 AM EST
    In the country outside of Scranton. So, isn't there anyone from the middle? And SAS has to cover all of the West side of the State until someone else pops in. Heh. Very exciting indeed.

    [ Parent ]
    I (none / 0) (#269)
    by sas on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:49:53 AM EST
    grew up near pgh

    live near philly now

    [ Parent ]

    6 friends of mine changed over just to get (none / 0) (#122)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:06:50 AM EST
    to vote in the closed Dem Primary in Penna. They will vote for her in the Nov GE but will not vote Dem if it not her. BTW, I have not seen any ads in the NE area. I can do without. Her appearances all over Penna gave her great exposure without the ads.Very positive I might add.

    [ Parent ]
    "Slighted" (none / 0) (#180)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:02:42 AM EST
    No.  SCREWED is what happened.

    Voters in PA will actually be counted.  Obama made sure that voters in MI weren't counted AT ALL.

    Obama supporters make the same kind of arguments used by Republicans.

    I love the one about winning more states.  

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah I like the one (none / 0) (#184)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:05:06 AM EST
    about winning more states, voters and delegates!  Crazy like its a race or something.

    [ Parent ]
    that's an interesting question? sorta! (none / 0) (#202)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:27:11 AM EST
    when people cross lines to vote with good intentions that will stay with the democrats in the general election, i say fine. when encouraging idiots with bad intentions to do so, i call wrong! and obama's campaign is not aimed at getting general election follow through. i suggest you go do your homework.

    [ Parent ]
    Correct just more mud slinging (none / 0) (#109)
    by Salt on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:59:38 PM EST
    in Ohio Obama got 49 percent of the cross over and Senator Clinton received 49 percent of the cross over vote as well.  Some voted for Obama because they say they wanted a weaker running mate against McCain and some voted for Hillary for the same reason... so whatever like the Passport files lots of slime not a lot of substance.

    [ Parent ]
    Two things... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Exeter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:44:06 PM EST
    1. The whole myth about Rush Limbaugh getting GOP to vote for Hillary and that caused her to win TX is pure myth.  There was a slight evidence of that, but not enough to make a difference in the outcome.

    2. Why isn't there the same scrutiny of why GOP is voting for Obama? Obviously there is a large fraction of these voters that simply hate Hillary and have no intention of supporting Obama in the general, but see it as a way to kill her off in the primary.


    [ Parent ]
    Then explain (none / 0) (#17)
    by ROK on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:49:47 PM EST
    the Exit polls from OH, TX and TN where up to 15% of those who voted for Hillary did not want her in the White House. That is staggering and more than "slight evidence".

    [ Parent ]
    Source? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Practically Lactating on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:52:05 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    CNN Exit Polls... (none / 0) (#27)
    by ROK on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:56:48 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Link? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Practically Lactating on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:11:00 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    CNN exit poll? That's BS (none / 0) (#113)
    by Exeter on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:02:22 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    CNN exit polls (none / 0) (#141)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:22:43 AM EST
    Right here.  You need to go to page 5 of 7 (using the arrows) near the bottom.


    [ Parent ]
    The link doesn't (none / 0) (#165)
    by popsnorkle on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:50:05 AM EST
    have a poll question about whether people want Hillary in the white house.  Closest I see is whether you'd be satisfied if she wins the election, presumably talking about the primary.  For that it says that of the 58% of all voters who will be satisfied if Clinton wins, 55% voted for Clinton.


    [ Parent ]
    A significant amount of Clinton voters (none / 0) (#204)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:29:03 AM EST
    said they would not be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee. 14.5% to be exact.  Here's the math:

    Out of the 41% of the candidates who would be unhappy with Hillary as the nominee, 13% voted for her.  This represents 5.3% of the MS Dem voters.  She picked up 37% of the total Dem vote.  About 1/7th of her voters didn't want her to win the office she was contesting.

    [ Parent ]

    So... (none / 0) (#259)
    by ROK on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:08:58 AM EST
    Those who voted for her in primary would be upset if she won? Hmmm...

    [ Parent ]
    Do you have a link for that (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:53:20 PM EST
    I have never heard such high numbers.  The only item I have heard of is a very slight amount voted for Clinton and still didn't counteract the number that had voted for Obama.  I think you just made the odd supposition that Repubs that voted for Obama will vote for him in Nov and those that voted for Clinton only voted for her because they don't want her to win but they gave her a vote that may allow her to win. fun.

    [ Parent ]
    Limbaugh Myth in TX (none / 0) (#36)
    by Davidson on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:01:22 PM EST
    Here is an article that disproves it.  Besides, Limbaugh has been pushing Obama for months, consistently praising him and bashing Clinton; it was only until right before TX, OH that he began to try and cover his tracks by seeming to push for Clinton.  Here is a great summary of how the right-wing has been universally pushing for Obama--until he became the Democratic leader for the nomination.

    [ Parent ]
    Key part of the Dallas Morning News article (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Davidson on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:13:20 PM EST
    Obama won the Republican vote.  And even if you subtract all those who could likely be Republicans, Clinton would still win.

    1) Nine percent of the voters in the Democratic primary were Republicans, according to exit polls. They voted for Barack Obama 53-49. They certainly didn't follow Limbaugh's instrucitons.

    1. The exit polls show that 7 percent of Democratic voters described themselves as "very conservative," a good indicator they might actually be Republican crossovers. They supported Clinton all right 58-42. So let's subtract them all, every vote. Clinton still wins.

    2. The same with other subgroups revealed in the exit polls: Texas voters who say Hillary doesn't inspire them, voters who say neither Democratic candidate inspires them. Voters who say they go to church more than once a week (sounds like a good Baptist to me). Subtract them, pretend them never voted, and Clinton still wins.

    3. The Collin County effect. The heart of the Republican Party is in fast-growing suburban counties like Collin. There's evidence that Republicans did crossover and vote in the Democratic primary. But how did they vote? Obama won 55-44. The same thing happened elsewhere -- suburban Williamson County north of Austin and Fort Bend County in Tom DeLay's old congressional district. Obama won them all by sizeable margins.


    [ Parent ]
    There are domocrats in both those (none / 0) (#226)
    by Jgarza on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:47:29 AM EST
    counties, especially in Williamson.  Winning in a republican county doesn't prove anything.  Exit poll s give you the best data on who republicans voted for.  Remember any democrats in WilCo and Colling are probably close in ideology to those in Dallas and Austin, both places where Obama had huge margins of victories.

    [ Parent ]
    Was the exit poll from Obama people? (none / 0) (#110)
    by Prabhata on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:00:36 AM EST
    I've looked at most exit polls and I've not seen any exit polls with those numbers.  Most exit polls do not ask such questions.  Sounds like another fairy tale from Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    You must have missed (none / 0) (#150)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:36:32 AM EST
    the exit polls in every state with an open primary. In TX and OH Obama had more support from independents and Republicans than Hillary had.

    In those states, Obama has won with independents and Republicans. In Missouri the numbers are very clear.  It was Republican support that gave Obama his narrow win. The exit polls are also very clear in Iowa and New Hampshire. Without independents and Republicans Obama loses. Hillary has carried the states with closed primaries.

    This whole scam is the Obama campaign trying to head off the criticism when it's revealed that Hillary has more votes from Democrats than Obama.

    This is something that superdelegates should give close attention.

    [ Parent ]

    Well... (none / 0) (#258)
    by ROK on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:05:34 AM EST
    "Republicans" voting for Obama doesn't suggest that they are voting against Clinton. What suggests that is the number of those who voted for her in the primary who would not vote for her in the GE.

    There is some truth that Obama really does appeal to Repubs and that they will vote for him in the GE. As much as those who comment on here love to get excited about "Dems for a Day", it is possible that Obama does appeal to many disenchanted GOP voters.  

    I know, I'm in trouble. Let me have it.

    [ Parent ]

    Pro Obama for a Day (none / 0) (#260)
    by andrys on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:15:03 AM EST
    Well, this Republican call to arms was referenced or linked-to often on Free Republic and other conservative forums and they did laugh about being "for Obama" for a few days.

     For those who don't go to links:

    Attention All Texas Republicans and Independents!!

    On March 4th, Texas Republicans and Independents will have an opportunity to end Hillary Clinton's (and Bill's) presidential ambitions once and for all!

    Since Texas has on open primary, Republicans and Independents should sign in at their polling place and request a Democratic ballot. They should then vote for Barack Obama. Even James Carville admits that if Hillary loses Texas, "she's done!" Republicans can help make this a reality!!! Just think, no more Clintons in the White House!

    Voting Democratic this one time will have NO effect on your ability to vote in the next Republican primary or obviously on your vote in November. Since John McCain has the Republican nomination locked up, voting for McCain or Huckabee at this point will have no effect on the outcome on the Republican side.

    After you vote during early voting or on March 4th, you ARE NOT done! Report back to your regular polling place at 7PM on March 4th to sign the Barack Obama list for caucus delegates. In a little known Texas voting quirk, 67 delegates to the Democratic convention will be seated because of these caucuses. This is a full one-third of the total number of Texas delegates. For Hillary to lose, she has to lose the primary votes AND the caucus votes.

    I urge you to vote against Hillary Clinton by voting for Barack Obama. Please forward this e-mail to all your Texas Republican and Independent friends so that we can help ensure the Clinton's defeat on March 4th!!!

    By the way, Wisconsin vote was about 30% Republicans and Independents.  It'd be nice if we were smart enough to have a way to choose our own candidates instead of allowing or, in Obama's case, openly encouraging other party members to choose ours when an Obama realizes his own party members are not likely enough to choose him in that primary.

    - Andrys


    [ Parent ]

    No. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by ajain on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:45:43 PM EST
    That's not the point. When obama supporters crib about Clinton getting repub votes, why do they forget that repubs have supported obama in most states? There is no outrage then. But when clinton gets repub votes people start crying foul about the primary being hijacked.

    [ Parent ]
    Obvioulsy (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by echinopsia on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:51:17 PM EST
     You didn't get the memo from Obama HQ.

    When indies and Republicans cross over to vote for Obama it's "building the party," regardless of whether they intend to vote Dem in November.

    When they cross over to vote for Hillary, it's "gaming the system" and voter fraud.

    [ Parent ]

    what are you drawing your inspiration from? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by TheRefugee on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:11:41 PM EST
    I don't remember seeing anyone say that its ok for Hillary but not for Obama.

    1.  Some states let indies and GOPers vote in Dem primaries.  Which is much different than trying to get nonDems to sign up and vote in a Dem primary where only registered Dems are allowed to vote.  And yeah, I have a problem with open primaries, Dems should choose Dem nominees.  And yeah, I also have a problem with 'Dems for a day'.  If a person doesn't have the conviction to stand behind the Dem party as registered Dem voter then I do not think that they have the right to change registry for one vote then change back the next day to vote Republican or third party in the GE.  

    2.  for reasons cited above I do think that courting non-registered Dems, ie people who don't stand behind or for the party on most basic Dem issues, is a subversion of the nominating process.  The Dem that wins the nomination should be chosen by registered dems, not independents and republicans.  Just as dems shouldn't try and game GOP primaries.

    If the primary rules remain the same in 2012 and beyond I will cease to vote in primaries.  Caucuses are elections of exclusion and open primaries are inherently unfair.  Republicans that vote in open primaries are voting for the candidate they think is more easily defeated in the GE and vice versa for Dems voting in GOP primaries.  

    [ Parent ]
    Well its not ok in TX OH (none / 0) (#24)
    by TalkRight on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:55:02 PM EST
    but now in PA I guess it is OK..

    To be fair.. BO has been winning because of republican votes earlier and in TX, OH it looks voting has reversed (I guess because now even they are scared of him .. not sure why.) BO has tried to discredit Hillary's win in TX to her support from Rep vote but have been silent before.. and silently encouraging the "one day stand" .. but my gut feeling is that if would reverse fire going forward..  

    [ Parent ]

    GOP Numbers (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Davidson on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:07:50 PM EST
    From the Village Voice article on how the right is seemingly gaming the system for Obama:
    Sixteen of the 45 Democratic primaries and caucuses held before this week were open affairs, allowing Republicans and independents to take part, and Barack Obama has won 11 of those contests. He almost invariably carried the Republican vote, which accounted for as much as 9 percent of the total in Wisconsin and Texas, and frequently ran even stronger among independents, who represented a fifth or more of Democratic primary voters in state after state. The 75 percent of the Republican vote that he won in Missouri, for example, may have pushed him over the top, and certainly, when combined with his 67 percent of the state's much larger independent vote, it delivered many of the district-apportioned delegates to him. Republicans in Obama states like Washington, Wisconsin, and Virginia were even freer to cross the aisle, since by the time they voted, John McCain had already sewn up the GOP nomination.


    [ Parent ]
    anybody wanna bet (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by TheRefugee on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:14:20 PM EST
    as to whether those are solid Obama votes?  Against McCain he might split the indies but those crossover votes, I would assume, will vote GOP in the GE.

    [ Parent ]
    After Wright: no (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Davidson on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:19:46 PM EST
    I don't see how Obama gets those votes.  Republicans really were never going to choose a Dem in the GE; Independents were Obama's supposed trump card and his numbers have dropped significantly amongst Independents alone (see: SUSA Ohio polls where before Wright he beat McCain and now he's significantly down; the drop is all or mostly from Independents).

    [ Parent ]
    I've never believed in the crossover (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by TheRefugee on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:39:04 PM EST
    effect.  Someone who is absolutely center of the road, maybe, could draw a significant crossover vote in today's partisan climate.  Obama?  As soon as someone gets tagged as "most liberal in the Senate" they have no chance with even centrist Republicans.

    And all these Obama supporters who think that he has crossover appeal because he's won states like Utah and Kansas don't seem to realize that Utah and Kansas aren't going to be Dem states in the GE with Obama on or off the ticket.  

    [ Parent ]

    i never believed that obama had (none / 0) (#207)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:32:37 AM EST
    cross over appeal in the general election. after the wright bruhaha, i know he doesn't. throw in floria, michigan and questionable campaign tactics, and you have a major democratic loss with obama in november.

    [ Parent ]
    What are the chances . . . (none / 0) (#231)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:52:04 AM EST
    he ends up with more 'usable' baggage than Clinton by the GE?

    OY!

    [ Parent ]

    obama has lost the general election. (none / 0) (#234)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:55:07 AM EST
    but you stay in there and learn the hard way. sometimes that is the only way to learn it seems.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm a Clinton supporter (none / 0) (#240)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:03:58 AM EST
    I was just noticing his baggage adding up. And wasn't that one of the reason's he was 'more electable'?

    [ Parent ]
    If the democrats game the system and make hillary (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by TalkRight on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:22:17 PM EST
    quit.. they will pay back in November.. She is the only one that can carry Dem's to victory against McCain..

    Obama will be another Kerry ..

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah...he is doing the Democrat for a Day thing (none / 0) (#174)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:57:20 AM EST
    Obama's effort has generated the most fanfare as his campaign has laid down a steady drumbeat of radio ads and e-mails leading up to the deadline for switching or joining parties.

    "For real change, register as a Democrat by Monday, March 24," advise Obama ads airing throughout the state.Since last fall's election, statewide Democratic enrollment has swelled by more than 111,000 -- an increase of about 3 percent in less than six months that state elections Commissioner Harry VanSickle said is apparently unprecedented. With days to go, Democratic registration is barely 5,000 votes shy of a record 4 million. Associated Press 3/20

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah. Color me surprised (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:24:58 PM EST
    when my redder than red county in VA went overwhelmingly for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    so you don't think he wins the county in (none / 0) (#81)
    by TheRefugee on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:40:42 PM EST
    the GE?  or do?  And is VA an open primary?  or did he just win the registered Dems?

    [ Parent ]
    Open. This is McCain Country. (none / 0) (#111)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:00:55 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    There is no party registration in VA. (none / 0) (#127)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:09:44 AM EST
    You just ask for the rep or dem ballot when you vote.

    [ Parent ]
    suprised a lot of people (none / 0) (#89)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:45:57 PM EST
    of course in VA Clinton v McCain and Obama v McCain paints a different picture

    where there is no difference in performance against McCain...unlike many other states where there is a big difference and not in Obama's favor.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmmm. Interesting. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:12:29 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Last polls I saw (none / 0) (#189)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:10:31 AM EST
    McCain was leading among Independents against Obama.

    This is a reference to the GE.

    Davidson makeas a good point about GOP crossovers. In 1972 (Nixon was incumbent) Republican crossovers in Michigan gave George Wallace the state.  This was proven by analysis of Republican precincts.

    [ Parent ]

    Sure, I'll correct you (none / 0) (#26)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:55:49 PM EST
    For one thing... when you post "the double standard" argument... make sure you back it up with some facts and logical reasoning...

    You do know that Rush is a Repub? He is not a Dem .. he does NOT want a Dem to win.

    By know you should be familiar with the demographics that vote for Sen Clinton. She has trouble winning thoise red state primaries.

    [ Parent ]

    You need to read the Obamablogs (none / 0) (#261)
    by alsace on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:31:32 AM EST
    Then you would learn that when Clinton wins, it's because all those dittoheads followed Limbaugh's instructions to sabotage the Democrats and vote for Hillary.  When Obama wins, it's because all those enlightened Independents and Republicans chose to walk with him into the wonderful new world of post-partisanship and political comity.  Got to get those talking points down!

    [ Parent ]
    In fact he has not. (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by ajain on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:53:15 PM EST
    He has released only one year of tax returns and has not answered why he has changed stories when it comes to tony rezko. Also he claims to have "lost" his state senate records. What a careful and responsible staff he has.

    Its JUST WORDS when it comes to Barrack Obama (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by TalkRight on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:04:29 PM EST
    At this point, it's no secret that the Obama campaign is in political hot water given the news stories of the last few weeks and is desperate to change the subject. They are coming in full force asking Hillary to Quit!! What do they fear??

    The ground is shifting away from them and their response?

    First, disenfranchise voters - Prevent new votes in Florida and Michigan. Stop voting in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Oregon, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, Kentucky, South Dakota, Montana, West Virginia and Indiana.

    Second, peddle with remarks and photos of President Clinton shaking hands with Reverend Wright less than 48 hours after calling for a high-minded conversation on race. Well, President Clinton took tens of thousands of photos during his eight years as president. Stop the presses.

    Third, accuse Hillary's campaign of having something to do with Senator Obama's passport file being breached, a reckless charge that has zero merit.

    Fourth, continue attacks on Senator Clinton's character in an effort to implement what the Chicago Tribune called a full assault on her ethics.

    Fifth, stonewall the press: no tax returns, no state records, no answers about the inconsistencies in the Rezko story.

    So it's not a pretty sight - it's all part of a pattern of just words.

    Senator Obama talks about voter participation while actively disenfranchising millions.

    He calls for high minded debates while practicing lowdown politics.

    He promises a different kind of campaign while attacking Hillary's character.

    He promises transparency while hiding basic info and stonewalling the press.

    It's no wonder that Americans are coming to see that for all of his lofty rhetoric, Senator Obama's candidacy is really just words.

    It's no surprise that Americans are expressing serious doubts about his ability to answer the 3am call.

    It's no wonder that top journalists are calling the Obama campaign desperate, saying that it's amateur hour in Chicago. Why are they asking Hillary to Quit if they think they are in a very very strong position?

    [ Parent ]

    Wrong (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by digdugboy on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:56:58 PM EST
    He sat down with a room full of reporters and editors from the Tribune and Sun Times and answered every one of their questions. The editorial staffs of both papers agreed the he's come completely clean on Rezko.

    How can he produce state records that don't exist?

    McCain
    [ Parent ]

    Don't exist? How conveeenient. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by echinopsia on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:03:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obama Rezko Story -- Just WORDS!! (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by TalkRight on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:13:40 PM EST
    April - Obama insists that Rezko is just one of `thousands of donors"
    11 months later, Obama admits he talked daily with Rezko when helping to raise money for Obama's Campaigns.

    November 2006 - Obama vaguely describes Rezko's purchase of adjacent lot as a coincidence.
    Over a year later, Obama campaign admits that Obama and Rezko toured the property together.

    January - Obama campaign says donation of $149,985 to charity encompasses `any and all funds that could be reasonably credited to Mr. Rezko.'
    Two months later, Obama admits that Rezko raised $250,000

    Every time he answers Rezko questions ... he provides a new story!

    [ Parent ]

    Right (none / 0) (#38)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:03:15 PM EST
    Did you read the articles?  There were opportunities for follow-up questions but pertinent questions were never asked.  If he has no issues with his boneheaded decisions, why doesn't he release the transactions from the land purchase?  Many people are aware of the Rezko situation and Rezko's connections.  He knew since college he intended to be a politician yet didn't keep his records?  He also didn't have anyone competent enough to keep track of his campaign donations?

    [ Parent ]
    stop posting misleading information (none / 0) (#86)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:43:42 PM EST
    and calling people liars Digdugboy. Several of your comments in this thread have been deleted.

    And on the Rezko questions, the issue is not whether he answered the Trib and Sun Times' questions. The Clinton campaign has asked him to produce other documents like records of his and Rezko's communications on the land deal and he's refused.

    Watch your allegations here please.

    [ Parent ]

    Not the same (none / 0) (#198)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:21:41 AM EST
    Sitting down with the editorial board is not the same as answering questions in an open press conference.

    Obama must avoid open press conferences.  He'd be taken to the cleaners.

    [ Parent ]

    don't exist? don't exist? and you (none / 0) (#210)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:35:25 AM EST
    believe that? i don't and neither will the general public. so believe what you want, but the rest of us won't follow the herd over the cliff.

    [ Parent ]
    Meanwhile, Clinton (none / 0) (#28)
    by Practically Lactating on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:56:54 PM EST
    has release tax returns dating back to 1980 I believe.  The returns since her husband left office will be released around April 15.

    That is almost 3 decades of returns to Obama's 1 year. Cherrypicking 1 year of returns is hardly transparent.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry (none / 0) (#155)
    by muffie on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:39:52 AM EST
    simply false

    The Clintons stopped disclosing their tax returns after they left the White House in 2000, and their incomes began to soar, with book deals and lecture fees. Hillary did not release her returns during her Senate re-election campaign in 2006. Instead, she pointed to the annual financial disclosure forms that she files as a U.S. senator which are available here and here.

    By contrast, Obama has released the form 1040 portion of his tax return (but not the entire return) since he first ran for the Senate from Illinois in 2004. Obama has released all his returns since 2004.



    [ Parent ]
    Read again (none / 0) (#178)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:01:32 AM EST
    ,,, the post said Clinton will release her returns around April 15 (mine aren't done).  The article states his attachments aren't released.  Obama has been very specific, he wants to see Clinton's attachments.  Interesting piece, loved the commentor who said the Rezko trial is bringing out the Clinton connections. (??)  

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (1.00 / 1) (#208)
    by muffie on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:33:11 AM EST
    Clinton has not yet released tax returns (i.e. any component of the 1040) from 2000-2008, but has said she will release them "on or around April 15th".  Obama has released the 1040, but not attachments (which I presume are things like 1099s from the bank, etc.) I believe he has not released any tax info pre-2004.

    Therefore, the claim above that "Clinton has release[d] tax returns dating back to 1980" is false.  The claim that Obama "has released only one year of tax returns" is if not false, at least very inaccurate.

    [ Parent ]

    yeah and obama wants congress to (none / 0) (#211)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:38:10 AM EST
    actually investigate his passport file bruhaha whereas clinton had hers looked at a year ago. she didn't demand special treatment. then we find out that the company handling all of this had their ceo on obama's campaign. now that is just so interesting. barry couldn't be there is help us with our privacy issues, but let's have congress check his out. really!

    [ Parent ]
    Reading comprehension (none / 0) (#276)
    by Practically Lactating on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:01:18 AM EST
    Her returns do date back to 1980. Did you not see the sentence saying that the returns since Bill left office are to be released in April?

    [ Parent ]
    So the Yahoo headline will be (none / 0) (#138)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:16:10 AM EST
    Obama: What am I Hiding?

    [ Parent ]
    Who cares what the hacks at the... (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Exeter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:59:51 PM EST
    ...gutted Chicago Tribune say? The reality is that Obama has admitted that he couldn't afford to buy the whole property so he asked Rezko to buy the adjacent lot to close the deal because the sellers demanded that they be sold together. At this point, his behavior was questionable.

    THENNNN, Obama asked Rezko to sell him 1/6 of the vacant lot to him, pretty much making the corner lot unbuildable and worthless to Rezko.  Why is it that three years later that Rezko STILL owns this property -- even though he is supposedly hurting badly for cash? And why has Obama, since the begining taken care of all the lawn mowing and maintenance of this yard?  This, at the very least, is a gross violation of the Senate ethics gift guidelines and should be investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee.

    I care what the hacks at the (none / 0) (#46)
    by digdugboy on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:09:12 PM EST
    Chicago Trib